51–60 of 187 posts
Weird. I posted a simple link, http://www.apple.com/wwdc on our blog ( http://gpapps.com ), and I get this crazy sequence of forwards: http://clk.tradedoubler.com/click?p=2554&a=1503186&g... http://registration.euro.apple.com/cgi-bin/trade-cookie.cgi?... http://developer.apple.com/wwdc/?aosid=p204&siteid=15031... All I want is my readers to go to the simple http://apple.com/wwdc link and not all that junk. Posterous…
I don't really see a problem with this as it does not strip off existing affiliate codes, it only adds them if they are not present. I mean, Firefox makes millions off of Google searches and nobody seems to complain about that.
FF makes money off revenue generated when you search and click on google ad. They do not replace links on content that you generate without telling you. Apples/Oranges my friend... Personally I use posterous as my personal site and I don't appreciate this.
And don't get with the problem with will cause to the linked sites in term of Google juice.
a. The links.
b. The disclosure.
Item a is very well debated. What about b? Why aren't users notified of it? If it is a recent change, why wasn't it announced? Etc.
It goes against the spirit of affiliate programs, which is an exchange of actual promotion in exchange for commission. The stores aren't gaining anything by allowing it since those links were already published. And it hurts other affiliates, not only by directly taking their commissions (because the most recent affiliate click before purchase counts), but also because it increases the total amount that the stores are paying out.
If this catches on, it will force merchants to lower their commission rates, causing them to lose publishers. I think that most merchants will end up forbidding the practice, just as many have forbid bidding against them in PPC campaigns.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Okay. Could you clarify more what happens if there are existing affiliate codes? Does Posterous only get an affiliate fee if there is no existing affiliate code?
That's pretty much the deal. Only URLs that don't yet include affiliate info gets re-written. There are a couple of companies in this space, viglink, skimlinks, etc. They all operate on the basis that they sign up to every affiliate scheme and they become the single publisher with which the merchants have a relationship (or more likely, the merchants use a marketplace that puts all merchants together so that they can…
All they need do is to act like another viglink or skimlinks and to record the clicks made per publisher using their platform. Then offer the publisher 50% of the revenue.
This is then an incentive to use Posterous beyond all of the ease of use. Anything you posted that included a potentially monetisable link would earn you revenue.
Now, this isn't as lucrative as just doing it yourself. But to all of the creative people making cool content who are lost when it comes to affiliate schemes this would be a killer feature.
To confirm for yourself: 1. Go to this post (the result of a Google search for Posterous and Amazon) - http://adeb.posterous.com/ubuntu-one-music-store-vs-amazon 2. Fire up a browser extension/add-on to monitor HTTP requests like HTTP Fox or HTTP Watch. 3. Click the link "here" at the end of the line: 1 install the rpm/deb from here You can clearly see a request to: http://api.viglink.com/api/click?key=8eb8c964d427e9…
The code for this is coming from viglink.com. If you disallow or block such scripts you do not see the added affiliate info.
Weird. I posted a simple link, http://www.apple.com/wwdc on our blog ( http://gpapps.com ), and I get this crazy sequence of forwards: http://clk.tradedoubler.com/click?p=2554&a=1503186&g... http://registration.euro.apple.com/cgi-bin/trade-cookie.cgi?... http://developer.apple.com/wwdc/?aosid=p204&siteid=15031... All I want is my readers to go to the simple http://apple.com/wwdc link and not all that junk. Posterous…
while it would have been nice to get a heads up, this doesn't bother me in the least. props to posterous for having a revenue model that doesn't interfere with the user experience whatsoever
Absolutely. What's wrong with a business having a revenue model? Better this than advertising or a crippled free version.
Is that a problem? Depends; some readers are put off by this sort of thing. Witness the comments on HN when someone discovers an affiliate link in a article posted here.
You can dismiss this as a fairly benign way to increase revenue, but I'd prefer no one alter my content, benign or not, without telling me right up front.
I don't think there's anything wrong with this, but why would Amazon, Walmart and others not make this type of linking against their terms of service? It goes against the spirit of affiliate programs, which is an exchange of actual promotion in exchange for commission. The stores aren't gaining anything by allowing it since those links were already published. And it hurts other affiliates, not only by directly taking…
I don't really see a problem with this as it does not strip off existing affiliate codes, it only adds them if they are not present. I mean, Firefox makes millions off of Google searches and nobody seems to complain about that.
FF makes money off revenue generated when you search and click on google ad. They do not replace links on content that you generate without telling you. Apples/Oranges my friend... Personally I use posterous as my personal site and I don't appreciate this.
I think this is an absolutely acceptable (and, incidentally, completely innocuous) monetization strategy. It's not like they're rewriting your blog posts to give the false impression you're a Nazi porn star child molester. (I would be against that, for the record.)